( NBC has released a video of kids terrified of trump , no I don't make this stuff up )

NBC News video featuring kids terrified about Trump comes under fire

Published February 23, 2017
· FoxNews.com

An NBC News video featuring children expressing fears about Donald Trump is drawing an outcry. (AP)

A pair of NBC News videos featuring kids expressing fears about Donald Trump’s presidency is coming under fire by conservatives who call it “propaganda.”

The videos show kids saying things such as “Most of my family is black. I’m afraid that you’re gonna hurt some of us blacks,” “You are here, attempting to white-wash America,” “You’re going to separate me away from the rest of my family, and I really don’t want [that] because I love them too much.”

The videos begin with one youth offering faint praise, then continue with a barrage of children expressing despair and fear over Trump and his policies.

The conservative outlet CNS ran a story that said: “NBC News handpicked anti-Trump tykes for two propaganda videos to make it appear that every child in America thinks President Trump is an ignorant racist and threat to the country.”

CNS said NBC seems to have gone out of its way to present all children as being terrified of a Trump-led nation.

NBC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

ABC News also produced a video right before the inauguration in which children addressed Trump, but its project showed children who showed enthusiasm or hope about the new president, as well as others who expressed concerns.

“The technique of doing it is not new,” Jeffrey Seglin, director of Harvard Kennedy School Communications Program, told Fox News. “It’s been done for years, it’s a feature piece.”

Seglin said the NBC News piece did not strike him as intentionally created to be anti-Trump. Noting that the students all seem to be in the same setting, Seglin said he would have had liked to have known what part of the country the network went to for the videos.

Seglin noted, however, that while ABC News did a similar project, its handling of having children address the new president was decidedly more even-handed.

“In the ABC video, there are very different views” expressed by the children, he said.

Trump-Reagan parallels are scary, but not for the reasons critics think

Tammy Bruce

By Tammy Bruce
·Published February 24, 2017
· FoxNews.com

Trump, seen here speaking to media members aboard Air Force One, has clashed with the press. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)

The media laugh at any attempt to compare President Trump to former President Ronald Reagan, but there are many similarities, not the least of which are the withering attacks both men endured before and after they sought the presidency.

The extraordinary assaults by media, celebrities and jealous politicians against Trump have been unending. Their attacks include questioning his mental health, repeatedly comparing him to Hitler, declaring him a fascist, insisting he’s a modern-day Manchurian candidate, that he’s a traitor (because Russians!), and on and on.

The striking thing about the nature of the attacks is that they’re all personal. They are accusations meant to instill in the listener a sense of danger, provoking an existential fear of the president of the United States.

Now why would someone want to do that? And what could possibly be the result of creating that toxic environment?

Reagan withstood similar vitriol by the same and usual suspects. The Sun newspaper quoted author Steven Hayward’s recollection of the rhetoric against Reagan: “Democratic Rep. William Clay of Missouri charged that Reagan was “trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf.”

Los Angeles Times cartoonist Paul Conrad drew a panel depicting Reagan plotting a fascist putsch in a darkened Munich beer hall. Harry Stein (later a conservative convert) wrote in Esquire that the voters who supported Reagan were like the “good Germans” in “Hitler’s Germany,” The Sun reported.

After being attacked relentlessly by fellow Republicans during the campaign, Hollywood making their condemnation known, and the media working overtime to demonize Reagan, it shouldn’t be surprising that, within 90 days of his taking the oath of office, the president was shot by a lunatic.

The now-freed John Hinckley believed murdering Reagan would impress actress Jodie Foster. “I will admit to you that the reason I’m going ahead with this attempt now is because I just cannot wait any longer to impress you,” the attempted assassin wrote to Foster.

“I’ve got to do something now to make you understand in no uncertain terms that I am doing all of this for your sake …. Jodie, I’m asking you to please look into your heart and at least give me the chance with this historical deed to gain your respect and love,” concluded the letter, written just hours before he went to the Washington Hilton, shooting the president and several others.

There’s nothing in Foster’s history indicating she expressed a loathing for Reagan. At the time of the shooting, she was a 19-year-old student at Yale. But it’s arguable that the overall media environment had become so toxic, a man with an already tenuous relationship with reality thought shooting the president would be a good idea and appreciated. After all, the critics all agreed that Reagan was a doltish, unhinged fascist who would start World War III simply because he was dumb. And evil, of course.

Sound familiar?

So far, the drumbeat against Trump is virtually identical. In the middle of the campaign, The Washington Post delivered an editorial titled, “Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy.”

The usual Hitler-fascist accusations are a daily narrative. Within the last two weeks, Democratic legislators started openly suggesting the president is mentally ill. The Hill reports, “A growing number of Democrats are openly questioning President Trump’s mental health. …. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., during a weekend interview with CNN’s ‘State of the Union’ said that ‘a few’ Republican colleagues have expressed concern to him about Trump’s mental health.”

NPR also decided to get into the act just a few days ago with an article that mused, “At 70, Trump is the oldest American president to ever take office. Couple his age with a family history of dementia. …” Yeah, subtle.

So on one hand, he’s a Machiavellian traitor cohort of Russian President Vladimir Putin. On the other, he’s a guy who is mentally ill. Oh, heck, let’s make it both. The New Republic, a leftist rag, chimed in with its obscene suggestion that the president is possibly suffering from an undiagnosed case of syphilis. Because … why not?

On Twitter and in his column at the Daily Wire, John Nolte refers to this dangerous public rhetoric against the president as “assassination dog whistles.” Then almost as if on cue, NBC News tweeted on Feb. 20, “President Trump reaches 32 days, won’t be shortest U.S. president.” So, they were expecting (hoping?) for him to not be president at this point in time?

As media rhetoric boils, last week a middle-schooler was arrested for throwing a 2x4 piece of wood at the presidential motorcade in Florida. He then implicated four other teenagers in what appears to be an attempted assault of the president. Charges are pending.

I do believe there are many similarities between Reagan and Trump. Now with the benefit of history, where are the responsible journalists and statesmen calling for the daily vitriolic personal attacks to stop? Where are the Bushes? The Cheneys? And even the Kennedys? They all know what it’s like when a president is murdered. The media should complain all they want about Trump’s policies, but focusing on demonizing the president personally isn’t politics, it’s a danger to us all.

Tammy Bruce is a radio talk-show host, New York Times best-selling author and Fox News political contributor.

Good points and I had forgotten about the treatment of Barron. That was over the line but wasnt most of that Rosie being Rosie? (she was vilified IIRC)

Leaving the kids out of it is one thing we all agree on. I am glad we dont make any news about our leaders kids, it could get pretty ugly. Anyone who recalls Chretiens kid ? He was in a ton of trouble.

Agreed.
From my perspective it just shows that the media liked (or at least didn't dislike) President Obama whereas they clearly (rightly or wrongly so) are not fans of the current President.

The situation with the kids sets two very different standards;
My thought is if you are are not going to stand up for a ten year old kid the same way you did for an 18 year old based on who their father is there is clearly a difference in the approach the media is taking.

I am not arguing that its a pile on;
News should be reported, good, bad, or otherwise
But I do feel this President is covered a different way than the last one, this is just one example of it.

Toronto Centre wrote:

But the gloves should be off...somewhat...for Trumps adult children since they are putting themselves in the line of fire since they are active employees (except Ivanka) who work for the govt now.

If you are in government you made the choice and if you make mistakes the understanding is that they will be reported.

However if you aren't....

Toronto Centre wrote:

And yes, it would appear so far that Trump is hiring the fox to run the henhouse. his choices are a problem to many people.
Drain what swamp?

I don't have a horse in the race;
I was once asked gun to my head would I pick Clinton or Trump and I seriously considered the trigger.

While I will digress for a moment,
This is truly a unique exercise in politics;

If Trump is doing right, wrong, or otherwise is not something I have too much of an interest delving into, but the next 18 months are going to the stuff that political scientists are made from.

The Democrats need the Senate and/or the House in 2018;

I would argue they are going more left of center in their approach to the President but six of the eight GOP Senate Seats out for grabs in 2018 are in very Conservative States whereas the other two are in Arizona and Nevada in which immigration is a top two issue, all while having to defending historically Conservative Senate Seats in Indiana, West Virginia, North Dakota and Montana from likely fairly strong GOP candidates.

Its going to be an interesting exercise to see if the Democrats but voters in a "lesser of two evils" position in 2018 or they will pivot a little to try and get a Senate balance.

( sure its snoop dogg so I'm not sure he should be taken serious , but I find it disturbing that such a high profile celebrity would post a video about a presidential assassination )

Snoop Dogg shoots clown resembling Trump in new music video

Published March 14, 2017
· FoxNews.com

Now Playing
Snoop Dogg shoots clown dressed as Trump in music video

Never autoplay videos

Snoop Dogg uses a toy gun to shoot a clown resembling President Donald Trump in a new music video.

In the video for the rapper's song "BADBADNOTGOOD," Snoop Dogg raps about police brutality in a world inhabited by clowns.

"This is the final call," he says before pointing a gun at the clown dressed as Trump who is smoking a cigarette. Snoop pulls the trigger and a flag that says "bang" shoots out from the toy gun.

FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK FOR MORE FOX ENTERTAINMENT NEWS

Later in the video, the Trump clown is wrapped in metal chains.

"The whole world is clownin’ around," the rapper told Billboard.

"I feel like it’s a lot of people making cool records, having fun, partying, but nobody’s dealing with the real issue with this f--king clown as president," he added. "And the s--t that we dealing with out here, so I wanted to take time out to push pause on a party record and make one of these records for the time being."

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio spoke out against the video telling TMZ that "Snoop shouldn't have done that." He said "we've had presidents assassinated before in this country, so anything like that is something people should really careful about." He adds that if the "wrong person sees that and gets the wrong idea, you could have a real problem."

In light of recent news do most folks still believe the media is doing a smear job on the Pres?
Does not the issues now out front, there was no 'tapps' (sic) and there is an investigation of the russians and Trump change your mind?

It would appear to me he will have some answering to do and he best get off that twitter tirade and focus on governing instead of worrying about his TV programmes, his bullshit fake news memes, and his attempts to obfuscate serious concerns in govt.

Comey, I cannot say whether he is any good or not, certainly should be , well I am not sure what, but for him to talk about the Hillary emails prior to the election but fails to talk about a Trump investigation sure smacks of something.

In light of recent news do most folks still believe the media is doing a smear job on the Pres?

I am likely amongst the few on this side of the fence,
But I don't see what is happening amongst the media as much different that the way things have been for the past decade.

I don't need the Groseclose and Milyo study to tell me that news is reported differently depending on the source, I just simply watch the same story reported on MSNBC and Fox News to clarify that.

The President and items surrounding the President are newsworthy;
Or most of them are.

To argue that news based on speculation and conjecture shouldn't be reported has clearly missed the better part of the last decade where news and opinion have blended into one neat package.

The only difference I see here is CNN;
and given that CNN was declared "Fake News" by the President during a nationally televised news conference I can see why they may be a little more pointed with the President.

There isn't much that is new here.

Toronto Centre wrote:

Does not the issues now out front, there was no 'tapps' (sic) and there is an investigation of the Russians and Trump change your mind?

There are some very serious allegations being tossed around regarding the Russians and the elections. My expectations (and really anyone's should be) is that it should be investigated to the absolute limits available.

The FBI doing what he FBI is there to do isn't bias or an attack on a party or leader its them doing their due diligence.

For better or worse.

With that said;
I am curious as to what the net result of the investigation will be. As such I will reserve judgement either way till that is out of the way.

With that said;
The Democrats need to be careful not to convince themselves that the next election will be a cakewalk because of all this floating in air.

While they should certainly hammer the GOP of the Russian issue;
They need to be mindful of the fact that the emails which were released were actually corespondents amongst the Clinton campaign.

Corespondents that validated a lot of concerns the average voter had toward Clinton.

Hammering Trump is one thing;
But they need to make a connection to voters in "the middle" and that is the aspect they have missed on over the first few months.

The President and items surrounding the President are newsworthy;
Or most of them are.

To argue that news based on speculation and conjecture shouldn't be reported has clearly missed the better part of the last decade where news and opinion have blended into one neat package.

I would think one may be able to go further back than a decade....right to the 70s under Nixon perhaps?

Quote:

There are some very serious allegations being tossed around regarding the Russians and the elections. My expectations (and really anyone's should be) is that it should be investigated to the absolute limits available.

The FBI doing what he FBI is there to do isn't bias or an attack on a party or leader its them doing their due diligence.

Absolutely.

Are you fascinated as to why the FBI Director talked about Hillary's problems yet left completely alone Trumps?

Quote:

With that said;
The Democrats need to be careful not to convince themselves that the next election will be a cakewalk because of all this floating in air.

Next election meaning Senate election? If so, yes they best wake up and fast.

I would think the Dems have learned their lesson and will do away with the arrogance they so proudly displayed. (Although I found it easy to do when their running competition was Trump--wait whos arrogant now? :) )

Of course, the issue isn't "wiretaps" but surveillance. It's gone way past old-fashioned, break-and-enter' wiretaps of yore. Now the NSA records virtually all electronic transmissions in America, and probably other countries as well. The information on American citizens is protected, in the sense that the NSA recognizes that American citizens have privacy rights.

In criminal cases, American domestic police agencies are allowed to electronically surveil suspects if they can justify a warrant. But they don't use wiretaps -- they just throw a switch, so to speak, at the telephone company.

Officially, it requires a FISA warrant to access certain kinds of information, particularly if that person is an American citizen about non-criminal acts.

The issue of 'wiretaps' is beside the point. No, there were no wiretaps but the question -- did the Obama administration have their opponents under electronic surveillance? And how far did that go? We know that General Flynn was brought down through the release of this information -- which is a felony, carrying a 10 year penalty.

Was Trump under NSA surveillance during the campaign? That is the question. We know that the administration sought a FISA warrant against Trump, by name, in August of last year, and were refused. In October, they managed to get a FISA warrant on the same server in a presentation that did not include Trump's name. The justification was the possibility of illegal relationships with Russians!

I would think one may be able to go further back than a decade....right to the 70s under Nixon perhaps?

Absolutely;
My thought was more the expansion of the 24 hour news-cycle but you are 100% correct.

My point was simply that its not a new phenomena

Toronto Centre wrote:

Are you fascinated as to why the FBI Director talked about Hillary's problems yet left completely alone Trumps?

This is a rabbit hole I don't usually like to go down because I don't have the information to make a truly educated comment.

How long was Clinton being investigated over the email server;
How long was Trump being investigated?
How far along was each investigation and when?

To answer your question;
I am fascinated with what the outcome will be.

The biggest difference between my position and many others is that I don't think that Comey closing the investigation, then opening it, and closing it all within the election cycle had as much to do with why Clinton lost compared to many other factors.

The campaign emails that were leaked regardless of if they came from Russians, Korean Gangsters, or Mork from Ork showed a level of disdain for the electorate in general and Sanders supporters specifically that validated every fear the Electorate already had regarding Secretary Clinton and the people she surrounded herself with.

Not campaigning in Blue Wall States as much as she should have didn't help that narrative either.

Toronto Centre wrote:

Next election meaning Senate election? If so, yes they best wake up and fast.

I would think the Dems have learned their lesson and will do away with the arrogance they so proudly displayed. (Although I found it easy to do when their running competition was Trump--wait whos arrogant now? :) )

Yeah, 2018.
Really that is there next true opportunity at any significant change to the balance of Federal Powers.

Arrogance was some of the problem;
The Democrats got it in their heads that Hillary was going to be the candidate, it was reminiscent of the old GOP Primaries of yore where the oldest white guy in the room would win because it was "his turn".

They had their horse picked.

The issue was she always had a perception problem;
The appearance was that she didn't connect with regular people.

Rather than acknowledging that after the loss we keep hearing about a racist electorate and the popular vote all of which are interesting talking points but likely not the reason you lost Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

If the Democrats want to capitalize they need to find a way to connect with voters "in the middle" otherwise even an unpopular President could yield large GOP Senate gains in 2018.

( a new study has found that 89 % of the media coverage on trump from mainstream media outlets has been negative )

Study: Trump Media Coverage 89% Negative After Taking Office

Image: Study: Trump Media Coverage 89% Negative After Taking Office

(Molly Riley/Pool via Bloomberg via Getty Images)

By Jason Devaney | Wednesday, 19 Apr 2017 04:51 PM

The three major broadcast networks' coverage of President Donald Trump during his first three months in office has been largely negative, a new analysis finds.

The Media Research Center studied the nightly newscasts on ABC, CBS, and NBC and concluded that 89 percent of the coverage pertaining to Trump and his administration has been negative since he took office Jan. 20.

Trump's two attempts at temporary halting immigration from countries with a terror presence garnered a combined 223 minutes of coverage and was 93 percent negative, according to the MRC. The investigation into whether Trump and people close to him had improper ties to Russia before and after the election received 222 minutes of coverage and was 97 percent negative.

Other topics that received a negative spin from the three aforementioned networks were the GOP's healthcare bill that was designed to replace Obamacare (152 minutes, 94 percent negative), enforcement of federal immigration laws (120 minutes, 93 percent negative), and Trump's claims that the Obama administration electronically spied on Trump Tower (98 minutes, 99 percent negative).

The MRC notes that the three major networks mostly ignored stories such as job creation and gains in the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS), which would have cast a positive light on the administration.

Trump and other conservatives have complained since the presidential campaign about the perceived bias against Trump in the media.

The results of a separate study released in December showed the coverage of Trump during the election was 77 percent negative — compared to the 64 percent negative figure given to Hillary Clinton, Trump's Democratic opponent.

Programming Alert: Don't miss "Tucker Carlson Tonight" at a new time, 8:00pm ET, starting on Monday, followed at 9:00pm by "The Five."

A new report found that President Trump has received more hostile treatment from the mainstream media than any other president in U.S. history.

According to the Media Research Center, 89 percent of broadcast networks' coverage of Trump has been negative.

From January 20 to April 9, 1,501 on-air statements about Trump made by experts, voters and reporters were negative, compared to just 186 positive, the study found.

It also revealed that most of the negative coverage of Trump was focused on his travel ban, Russia's meddling in the U.S. election, the ObamaCare repeal, immigration enforcement, and Trump's allegations that President Obama had him wiretapped.

On "Outnumbered" today, Newt Gingrich warned that this is another sign that the liberal mainstream media is drifting further and further to the left.

He suggested that the Trump administration "clean out the White House press room."

"Why would you allow The New York Times or CBS News in the White House press room?" Gingrich said. "They're your mortal enemies."

Meghan McCain said that the Trump administration has contributed to its issues with the mainstream media by not always putting out proper messaging.

She singled out White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer in particular.

McCain added, however, that there's no doubt that the liberal press was in the tank for Obama, and now they're out to get Trump.

Watch more above, and see Judge Jeanine Pirro get fired up while discussing the left's attempts to "shut down the right."

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum